Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Proposed Apartment Complex/golf Links & East Natoma


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 gbfolsom

gbfolsom

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

Just passing along this Facebook page in case you want to sign a petition against a proposed three-story apartment complex being built on the corner of Golf Links and East Natoma (if link doesn't work search for Just Say No to Serenade at Empire Ranch) https://www.facebook...576223589056150

#2 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 April 2013 - 06:54 PM

That's the senior complex for 55 and over that was the subject of a recent Folsom Telegraph article.

While I definitely see a need for such a complex, I have to agree with a comment I saw at the end of the story that three stories for seniors doesn't seem very practical. I guess they'll have elevators? I know a family member that will soon be needing such housing, but I can't see them doing stairs

Did the neighborhood try and oppose the zoning change when it occurred?

#3 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:34 PM

I would love a senior housing complex as a neighbor. Quiet, peaceful, neat, managed. We need this in Folsom. Also, I would imagine a senior housing complex would be preferrable to subsidized or affordable housing, wouldn't it?
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#4 gbfolsom

gbfolsom

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:34 PM

I'm not at all opposed to senior housing. I have issues with a three story densely, populated building on a small lot. The traffic at that intersection is already bad and with a school and park on the opposite corner I think it is poor planning.

#5 (Cheesesteak)

(Cheesesteak)
  • Visitors

Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:31 AM

I don't get it. The Telegraph article says:

The proposed complex stands about 39-and-a-half feet high, four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home. The site is “somewhat depressed,” meaning it sits about 10 feet below street grade.


How can a 3-story apartment building only be "four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home?" I can understand the concern of the neighobrs who live on Smith Street - but I'm not sure that building something a few feet taller than a two story home is going to destroy their view. I also don't get the huge concerns about traffic and crime - it's a senior complex.

#6 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

I don't get it. The Telegraph article says:

The proposed complex stands about 39-and-a-half feet high, four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home. The site is “somewhat depressed,” meaning it sits about 10 feet below street grade.


How can a 3-story apartment building only be "four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home?" I can understand the concern of the neighobrs who live on Smith Street - but I'm not sure that building something a few feet taller than a two story home is going to destroy their view. I also don't get the huge concerns about traffic and crime - it's a senior complex.


I was wondering that, too. Are they thinking since it's affordable senior units that means crime?
The traffic concern is probably the amount of units and the fact that it is proposed as an active senior complex, which means there will be cars. If a lot of the residents will be retired and on fixed incomes, I doubt they will interfere with the school traffic.

Does anyone know where to find artist's renderings or layouts of the buildings besides what's on the facebook page? Maybe the residents could at least find some compromise with the placement of buildings, etc.

#7 ambrno33

ambrno33

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • Location:Empire Ranch

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:20 AM

Crime at affordable senior housing doesn't come from the seniors... it comes from their kids and grandkids who often take up residence in their apartments because it's cheap and grandma has a hard time asking them to leave. Often times, seniors on fixed incomes, have children and grandchildren with low incomes too.

#8 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:26 AM

Crime at affordable senior housing doesn't come from the seniors... it comes from their kids and grandkids who often take up residence in their apartments because it's cheap and grandma has a hard time asking them to leave. Often times, seniors on fixed incomes, have children and grandchildren with low incomes too.


That's a legitimate concern and if it's being proposed as 55 and older then that shouldn't be allowed to happen through the lease requirements.

#9 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:30 AM

That's a legitimate concern and if it's being proposed as 55 and older then that shouldn't be allowed to happen through the lease requirements.

it probably isn't allowed. if its a senior facility, the age is restricted to 55 and above. like that Diamond Glenn complex over on Sibley Street. or the senior apartments in downtown Sacramento. crime free, all of them.
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#10 ambrno33

ambrno33

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • Location:Empire Ranch

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:32 AM

That's a legitimate concern and if it's being proposed as 55 and older then that shouldn't be allowed to happen through the lease requirements.


it's hard to get rid of them because technically the seniors are allowed to have family come and visit, and also stay the night. It's hard to enforce who is staying with who, and for how long. Probably won't be a big problem in Folsom, but I have worked at a couple complexes in Rocklin where there were issues with drugs and loitering.

#11 folsom500

folsom500

    Folsom Gardner

  • Moderator
  • 6,562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:37 AM

I can see NO issues with this development. It is senior housing, Seniors drive slow if at all. The 3 story is really not an issue especially since it is built on a below grade plot. The density is not overwhelming. My only concern as has been pointed out is that it is 3 stories and if they only have stairs to access units it make is much more difficult for seniors to go up and down.

Another great  day in the adventure of exploration and sight.

 

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-


#12 folsom500

folsom500

    Folsom Gardner

  • Moderator
  • 6,562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:40 AM

it's hard to get rid of them because technically the seniors are allowed to have family come and visit, and also stay the night. It's hard to enforce who is staying with who, and for how long. Probably won't be a big problem in Folsom, but I have worked at a couple complexes in Rocklin where there were issues with drugs and loitering.


I am sure there will be a ton of drugs used daily there - and loitering - of course there will be a lot of that as well- Heck it is for Seniors - they take lots of drugs and do not move very fast - right ?

It is really not hard to enforce no extended stays if the unit management monitors it.

Another great  day in the adventure of exploration and sight.

 

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-


#13 andy

andy

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

The developer says they are redesigning the project to try and mitigate some neighborhood concerns - it remains to be seen if that will be minor tweaking or wholscale revisions. I am cautiously optimistic that something can be worked out but at this point the developer wants the nieghborhood to make all the concessions and the precedent is rather disconcerting for established neighborhoods all over the city. For the record, the only neighborhood opposition there has ever been to development of the site through three separate proposals now has been the number of stories in the buildings and the number of units exceeding 200 - that's it.

While the lot is partially 'below grade' to Golf Links at some spots, it's significantly 'above grade' to its neighbors on Smith. For those homes a three-story structure is closer to 4-5 stories. It's also not construction allowable under the current zoning; they are asking for special consideration to accomodate them.

There are lots of good reasons to have affordable senior housing, and for the most part, the neighborhood is supportive of the concept if they could keep it to two stories bu the developer refuses to consider anythign less than a three-story building. But from a planning perspective, it goes against existing policy and practice to build this way adjacent to one-story homes, and it goes against best practices to build senior housing over a mile and a half from stores and services - the project is locked into being someplace where only driving gets you places - that's not smart development for low-income seniors, that's a convenience only for land sellers and project developers. This project would be far better placed somewhere like Cavitt, which is undeveloepd, zoned, for the use, and adjacent to both shopping and medical services.

The project is also dependent on a conditional use permit, which is not something you would normally do for permanent construction like a three-story building where one isn't allowed by the existing zoning. If the use ends up being a problem, it's pretty hard to revoke the permit in such a case. with two additional condo projects already slated for the lot next door, this experiment in use could go wrong and the neighborhoosd will have to live with it.

I don't appreciate having to sound like a NIMBY, because I do care about my community and I'm willing to look at bigger pictures. I see value in such a prioject. But this is just a bad idea and I think it's a bit disingenuous as well since there are better sites in the city that don't require special treatment. And I'm afraid if the city can do this, it can do anything it wants with any piece of land in the city - that's not planning...it's the absence of planning.

#14 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:17 PM

There are lots of good reasons to have affordable senior housing, and for the most part, the neighborhood is supportive of the concept if they could keep it to two stories bu the developer refuses to consider anythign less than a three-story building. But from a planning perspective, it goes against existing policy and practice to build this way adjacent to one-story homes, and it goes against best practices to build senior housing over a mile and a half from stores and services - the project is locked into being someplace where only driving gets you places - that's not smart development for low-income seniors, that's a convenience only for land sellers and project developers. This project would be far better placed somewhere like Cavitt, which is undeveloepd, zoned, for the use, and adjacent to both shopping and medical services.

The project is also dependent on a conditional use permit, which is not something you would normally do for permanent construction like a three-story building where one isn't allowed by the existing zoning. If the use ends up being a problem, it's pretty hard to revoke the permit in such a case. with two additional condo projects already slated for the lot next door, this experiment in use could go wrong and the neighborhoosd will have to live with it.

I don't appreciate having to sound like a NIMBY, because I do care about my community and I'm willing to look at bigger pictures. I see value in such a prioject. But this is just a bad idea and I think it's a bit disingenuous as well since there are better sites in the city that don't require special treatment. And I'm afraid if the city can do this, it can do anything it wants with any piece of land in the city - that's not planning...it's the absence of planning.

The same could be said for the residents in the historic district with their feelings about the subsidized transitional and affordable housing units being clustered in that area.
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#15 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:21 PM

The same could be said for the residents in the historic district with their feelings about the subsidized transitional and affordable housing units being clustered in that area.


Do you think we can trade? We'll even throw in drug and alcohol counseling for your elementary school, no charge.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users